WASHINGTON -- Four years after Paula Jones filed her sexual harassment suit
against President Clinton and three weeks after a federal judge dismissed it, the
National Organization for Women (NOW) has decided it might, just might, support
Jones' suit.

In other words, the support of NOW is coming so late, the group should probably
change its name to THEN.

Where was NOW when Paula Jones needed it?

Standing on the sidelines, which means standing with Bill Clinton.

Clinton has been masterful at wooing the support of women. He was elected to the
presidency both in 1996 and 2000 on the votes of women, losing the male vote both
times.

It is no accident that Clinton continually stresses issues like school uniforms, v-chips
and family leave, which, the White House believes, especially resonate with women
voters.

But that is what the president does in his public life.

In his private life, Paula Jones says, he exposed himself to her in a hotel room and
asked her for oral sex.

And now, NOW says, maybe the organization should take that seriously.

Or maybe not.

NOW is not sure. NOW wants to contact its 500 member chapters and see what they
think.

Or maybe NOW could delay things even further. Maybe each member chapter could
consult each member. And then maybe NOW could decide. Like sometime in the next
century after Clinton leaves office. Or maybe in the 22nd century when everybody
involved in the case is dead.

NOW claims that it was interested in helping Paula Jones all along.

Patricia Ireland, head of NOW, says that she tried to help Paula Jones back when
Jones filed her suit, but her attempts were rejected.

"She rebuffed our efforts to help her and went with the right wing," Ireland said.

Funny thing, though, when I did a data base check of stories from 1994, when Jones
filed her suit, I couldn't find any mention of NOW trying to help Jones and getting
rebuffed.

Instead, I found a May 31, 1994, story in the Los Angeles Times about the people
trying to help Paula Jones, including her first lawyer Danny Traylor and Patrick J.
Mahoney, the leader of a militant anti-abortion group.

Mahoney, the Times reported, "said that after hearing Jones' story, he tried to enlist a
number of conservative and feminist groups on Jones' behalf. ... Mahoney also said he
tried to arrange a conference call among Traylor, Jones and Patricia Ireland, director
of the National Organization for Women, to seek NOW's involvement in Jones' sexual
harassment case. Ireland declined to take up Jones' cause, saying only that her
organization would monitor the case."

And NOW is still monitoring things. But two things strike me about Ireland's statement
that NOW didn't help Jones because Jones decided to go with the right wing.

First, so what if Jones went with the right wing? Do only left-wing women deserve the
help of NOW? I thought NOW was supposed to care about the rights of women, not
the politics of women.

Secondly, Paula Jones is still with the right wing. So why is NOW considering changing
its mind and supporting her?

Could it be that NOW feels that all-out support for Bill Clinton is no longer politically
correct?

Could it be that after accusations not just by Jones but by Kathleen Willey, who says
Clinton groped her in the Oval Office, NOW is getting a little bit nervous about standing
on the sidelines?

It is hard to say. Because NOW keeps twisting in the wind.

"What we are talking about is the strategy of having women-friendly workplaces and
schools, not just for Paula Jones in this case but for all women in the workplace or in
school," Ireland said on ABC's "Good Morning America" this week.

Which is why, Ireland said, NOW is considering whether to file a friend-of-the-court
brief on behalf of Paula Jones when she appeals the dismissal of her suit.

But then, Ireland went on to say NOW may not want to help Jones after all.

"In this highly charged, political and partisan case, we may not see this ... as the best
way to improve the lot of women in the workplace," Ireland said. "We don't want bad
law made, and I certainly don't trust the right-wingers who are judging the strategy on
this case."

So maybe NOW will support Jones. And maybe it won't.

But one thing is sure: NOW won't decide anything now.

4/20/98: Freedom to be a jerk?
4/14/98: Bill is Hef's kinda guy
4/7/98: South African memories --- and a paradise not yet found
3/24/98: Bill's 12-day safari3/20/98: Peace for Ireland?3/18/98: Flat tire? Spare me3/13/98: Latrell Sprewell's genius3/10/98: On truth and reality3/5/98: No, I'm not harrassing Hillary3/3/98: The Unforgettable Henny Youngman2/26/98: Grow up, boys!2/24/98: Go get 'em, Bill!2/19/98: My 15 minutes2/17/98: The manic-depressive presidency2/12/98: Drip, Drip, Drip2/10/98: Clinton tunes out the networks2/5/98: The flight of the Beast: America's love-hate relationship with scandal2/3/98: Speaking Clintonese1/29/98: What the president has going for him1/27/98: Judgment call: how Americans view President Clinton1/22/98: Bimbo eruptions past and present1/20/98: Feeding the beast: Paula Jones gets the full O.J.1/15/98: Let's get it over with: it's time to deal with Saddam, already1/13/98: Sonny Bono is dead, let the good times roll1/8/98: Carribbean Cheesecake: First couple has cake, eats cake1/6/98: PO'ed: a suspected druggie jumps through the employment hoops1/1/98: Cures for that holiday hangover12/30/97: Buy stuff now12/25/97: Peace to all squirrelkind12/23/97: Home for the Holidays: Where John Hinckley, never convicted, will not be12/18/97: Bill's B-list Bacchanalia: Press and politicos get cozy, to a point
12/16/97: All dressed up... (White House flack Mike McCurry speculates on his next career)